Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @07:12AM
from the time-to-regulate dept.

New submitter globaljustin writes "According to a Washington Post report: 'Several months after calling for legislation to unlock cellphones, the White House filed a petition (PDF) with the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday asking that all wireless carriers be required to unlock all mobile devices so that users can easily switch between carriers. ... the National Telecommunications and Information Administration said that allowing unlocked devices would increase competition and consumer choice, while also putting the burden of changing networks on companies rather than consumers.' This move should be met with universal acclaim from cell phone users, right?"

We have four major carriers. Two carriers are on CDMA and two are on GSM. The two GSM carriers use different frequency bands for 3G, which means you need a phone with a pentaband 3G radio to be able to freely switch between those two. LTE is even more complicated.

Basically, this would have been a great suggestion ten years ago, but now the carriers have used technical measures to make the whole "carrier locking" thing moot.

T-Mobile did not refarm its spectrum to support the new iPhone. They worked with Apple to get a special version of the A1428 iPhone 5 to support AWS band 4 (1700/2100)MHz, which allows the phone to work on their data network. ATT is not using 1700/2100MHz for their data network.

Now, to relieve congestion on their 4G networks, T-Mobile is moving their EDGE networks over to HSPA+ on 1900MHz to provide additional 3G bandwidth on a predominantly only 2G frequency. This is only happening in major cities, such as Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc. If you're like me (in eastern Iowa), this "network evolution" doesn't mean crap for me. Now, as a pure side-effect, providing HSPA+ on 1900MHz allows 3G to also work on earlier iPhone models, such as the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. That was NOT the primary intent.

So the situation still is - if you want fully featured data services, you must know the frequencies and waveforms your carrier uses and make sure they are compatible. For me, with an iPhone 4S (unsupported on iWireless, a T-Mobile subsidiary), I get EDGE speeds here, but when I viist larger cities operated by T-Mobile, I get 3G. For the iPhone 5, well, there are no less than FOUR versions today (and it was more complicated before the T-Mobile iPhone rollout in early 2013), but as of now, there's the CDMA/Verizon version, there's the international GSM version (which does not work on AWS 1700/2100MHz), the ATT GSM version (which does not work on 1700/2100MHz) and the "Unlocked/T-Mobile" GSM version, which does work with AWS 1700/2100MHz. Clear as mud, right?

Even if the phones were unlocked and everyone could switch carriers, until you get the cell phone manufacturers to start making "world" phones again for data, it's still pretty much locked down (such as the ATT vs Tmobile vs Verizon/Sprint iPhone5 issue described above). At least for VOICE, yes, any GSM phone works just about anywhere in the world, but we let the companies make a mess out of "standards" for 3G/4G/LTE data.

There are many smaller cell service providers besides the big 4. They buy time on the major networks in bulk and resell it at discounted prices. A list of the alternatives for A&TT includes Airvoice, Black Wireless, Fuzion Mobile, H20 Wireless, Straight Talk ( list from the Mr. Money Moustache blog). With my phone unlocked I can get the same service from the same towers for $40 from Airvoice that A&TT charges me $87/month. I am at the end of my ATT contract and I am seriously considering bu

What do you mean "still". CDMA emits a magnitude less radio waves, has longer range, has better penetration of walls/etc, can do soft hand-offs, has no logical limitation of range, gets better signal strength when lots of towers are in the same area, has no issues with frequency planning.

It is better than GSM is almost every way, other than cost and market penetration.

You guys are still on fiber optics?! We use copper! It's so much better!

Not only does the U.S. still have CDMA, most of the rest of the world does too. CDMA won the standards war. The only part of GSM which uses its original TDMA is the voice comms. Most GSM carriers have adopted CDMA or WCDMA for 3G and 3.5G data service (including HSDPA/+).

TDMA sucks because it allocates a timeslice to each phone regardless of whether or not that phone actually transmits during the timeslice. The way CDMA works, every phone can transmit simultaneously and the bandwidth per phone decreases proportionally to the increasing noise floor. i.e. it scales automatically with number of phones transmitting, instead of scaling with the number of phones connected to the tower like TDMA. If it weren't for CDMA, 3G data speeds on GSM would've been limited to about 150 kbps.

That's also the reason GSM phones can do voice and data simultaneously. They have a TDMA radio for voice, and a separate CDMA radio for data. CDMA phones typically have only one CDMA radio, so they can only do either voice or data, not both simultaneously.

CDMA is finally being supplanted by OFDMA (what most implementations of LTE use) because processors have finally become powerful enough to decode the OFDMA signals without draining your battery in 30 minutes. Conceptually, OFDMA is very similar to CDMA, except it operates in the frequency domain instead of code domain. In CDMA each phone is assigned an orthogonal set of codes (e.g. Three phones could be assigned codes AB, BC, and CD. If the phones 1 and 2 transmit simultaneously, the signal the tower sees is ABC, and it knows phones 1 and 2 transmitted while 3 did not. In this simple example, instead of losing 1/3rd of your bandwidth because phone 3 didn't transmit like would happen in TDMA, you only lose 1/4 the bandwidth. The more complex the codes, the less bandwidth you lose). In OFDMA each phone is assigned an orthogonal set of frequencies.

Since CDMA as normally implemented does not have SIM cards it is extremely consumer unfriendly. In fact in violation of their LTE band C requirements VZW is not even activating outside devices on their network. You can activate an approved device and move the SIM over, but they will not activate a new SIM in an unapproved device.

When people say GSM, they mean the ETSI standards, including UMTS, HSPA and LTE. Most vaguely recent 'GSM' phones speak at least GSM and UMTS, many also do HSPA and the latest ones do LTE as well. All of the newer standards are also patented, but they're RAND licensed and so there's lots of competition among device makers.

Weren't you paying attention? Different carriers got licensure for different bands, so even the vaunted SIM-card regime means that to go from one carrier to another, your phone has to work on the other carrier's band.

Living in a country with 4 carriers using different GSM bands I can tell you: That isn't really a problem.Practically all GSM phones nowadays are tri-band as a minimum.

Yes it's called a "Loan" and it's what happens when you buy a $600 toy with $50 and someone tells you they need $20 a month until they have $600 from you.

At least for some carriers, the price under contract and the off-contract price are the same. So none of the money you're paying them per month is for the phone. It's then not a loan, and the "cost" of the phone is the opportunity cost of being under that contract as opposed to being able to purchase different service. Depending on where you live, this opportunity cost could be zero. Imagine, say, Verizon is the only carrier that actually works in your neighborhood.

someone tells you they need $20 a month until they have $600 from you.

It's worse than that, because the $20/month continues even after the $600 has been paid off. After a typical 2-year contract has finished and, presumably, your phone is paid off, it is never the case that your monthly bill is reduced - it continues the same. The "phone payback" portion of your bill isn't called out as a separate line item that you could dispute. This is why non-prorated early termination fees are essentially fraud, t

And he did bring change, he brought an astonishing amount of change seeing as the GOP asshats in congress have spent the last nearly 5 years shooting down even their own proposals to destroy his Presidency.

Apparently getting 90% of what they want isn't sufficient they have to get that remaining 10% as well.

But, despite of that DADT is gone, DOMA is gone, we have Obamacare, the President actually waited for the UN in Libya. Not to mention we did get some banking reforms, even if they weren't anywhere near enough and the economy has been slowly on the mend. Slowed mainly by the refusal of the GOP to do anything to help the progress out.

If it's anything like the UK it'll do nothing to subsidies as you're still contracted to 12 to 24 months or whatever, the difference is that when that time is up (or even before hand if you fancy paying for a contract you no longer use or have the option to buy out) you can now go to another carrier without needing a new phone for their network.

This is how it works in the UK. We still have contracts that subsidise handsets that you can be tied into, the carrier just can't prevent you using your device on another network afterwards or even at the same time if you're so inclined.

That's what I do and go for contracts that are much shorter term than is typical with a subsidised phone because it gives me far more flexibility and much lower per-monthly costs as I'm just paying for my contract without any phone costs bundled in.

But not everyone has the cash upfront to buy a Â£600 smartphone outright yet are happy to pay for one over the period of say 24 months instead and then still be able to use it even if they want to change carrier afterwards.

In fact, without subsidies the smartphone market would be tiny compared to the size it is now as the vast majority of the general public would not be willing to pay for a phone if they saw the full cost of the device upfront and had to pay it in one big chunk.

They're really essential for the health of the smartphone industry as much as I'm not a fan of them.

You americans crack me up, you really do:) I expect that the actual evidence of healthier cellphone markets existing in places with unlocked phones is not enough to convince you? The fact that places where the consumer isn't locked into a network actually benefit the consumer have better service and lower costs?

Okay, how about this - you really think that all service providers foot the upfront costs of the phone? Hell, no! They do what every business does when the business wants to sell on credit - they find a bank that grants a personal loan to the consumer who wants to buy on credit. The business then receives their money upfront from the bank while the bank then receives the monthly dues from the consumer, who thinks that he's paying the business.

Of course the consumer doesn't see any of this - the business hands the consumer forms to fill in; those forms are the application for a personal loan for the amount that is being purchased. The filled in forms then go to the bank, which approves the loan and releases the money to the business, who then releases the item to the consumer. Payments made each month go to the bank, even if via the business.

A variation is when the business offers these loans themselves ("BUY ON STORE CREDIT"), and then turn around and sell these loans (for cash) to a bank. You've seen something similar in the housing market which eventually resulted in bank bailouts.

Trust me, even with the lack of subsidies, the consumers are still going to get the phones they wanted anyway, albeit at a smaller monthly payment than the "subsidy" would cost. Instead of buying a $500 phone over 24 months and paying a total of $1500, they'll be buying a $500 phone over 24 months and paying less than $700.

I did the maths for my last phone purchase (an HTC One X for my wife), as I do whenever I make a purchase like that. I don't have the figures available to me right now, but the amount extra you pay over the course of a contract was more than if I'd just purchased it on my credit card and paid it back over the same time frame. And credit cards aren't exactly the cheapest loans available...

If people could see how much they were paying on their loan-by-any-other-name, they might be inclined to get the money from a different source even if they can't afford to pay it outright. That's not to say that the carrier-contract model couldn't still be available for those that still wanted to take it up.

Plus, it might inspire carriers to lower their interest rates a little if they were open to more transparent competition.

Of course, a side effect of that is that it's possible to get a contract that's not subsidising a phone sale, usually for a pittance. From what I hear the US doesn't have those: you can get a contract with no phone, but you'll pay the same. T-Mo seem to be an exception?

It still baffles me how anyone, right, left, or indifferent, could ever trust what comes out of a politician's mouth or their mouth pieces. So the nonsense of FauxNews or the Communist News Network, are all in cahoots to sell you soda and a side of fear.

Although my phone is unlocked, if it weren't, and it got unlocked, my choice of a wireless carrier will increase by exactly one carrier. As Benny Hill would've said: biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig...deal.

I'm just curious if anyone in the administration actually knows that US wireless companies use different, incompatible technologies. A phone that works on one carrier would, at most, have a chance of working on only one other carrier, and would, most likely, lack the abil

At least, if people had to pay for phones directly (instead of indirectly trough outrageous monthly fees), they would probably be more likely to spend money on a phone compatible with most standard networks, meaning they dont have spend more money if they change network.

This would mean that networks using "non-compatible" equipment would be in a worse position as people would hesitate more to drop money on phone only compatible with one network, driving developement towards more standardized networks and

A friend of mine always buys an unlocked phone because he travels frequently to the US. It allows him to swap SIM cards so he doesn't get killed on roaming charges. There are advantages for some to have unlocked phones. For you maybe not so much. For him he would not mind a contract with a subsidized phone if he could swap the SIM card.

I'm just curious if anyone in the administration actually knows that US wireless companies use different, incompatible technologies.

Under the current system regardless of any technical limitations of you using your phone on different carriers, the wireless companies can prevent you doing so merely if they wish. The administration cannot wave a wand and magically change the hardware on your phone. Nor can they release you from a contract you signed. They can force the carriers from locking your phone to their network. So the administration can do something within their control and they are proposing that change.

A phone that works on one carrier would, at most, have a chance of working on only one other carrier, and would, most likely, lack the ability to take advantage of the additional carrier's full spectrum, resulting in degraded service.

I'm just curious if anyone in the administration actually knows that US wireless companies use different, incompatible technologies. A phone that works on one carrier would, at most, have a chance of working on only one other carrier, and would, most likely, lack the ability to take advantage of the additional carrier's full spectrum, resulting in degraded service.

Yes they do know. If the phone companies hadn't been ready now, they would have waited until they were and then made the announcement. The administration looks good, pro consumer, where in reality you're still locked in.

Verizon's smartphones are already unlocked... ATT will unlock as soon as we've paid for the devices in full.I'm probably over-generalizing.... A mandate like this is going to prompt them to find a way to screw us over. Remember what happened with the portable numbers? We all ended up with a $1.75 "regulatory recovery fee" on our bills for quite a while.

having worked for a phone company, in the very department that handles number portability, I can tell you that moving your number around is a huge pain in the ass for the phone company. And no, it's not because their systems are in the dark ages. It's because the PSC gives out number blocks in groups of 10,000. (think 555-555-0000 through 9999) and they ONLY give you so many. Now imagine your blocks of numbers filled with people that don't even have services with you... so now you have maybe 5 numbers in use in a block of numbers... and a major hospital gets built and needs 10,000 phone numbers. You go to the PSC and ask for more numbers, and they say "No, you already have 100k numbers in that area and you are only using 45% of them. Use the other numbers!" But the hospital needs them consecutive and many of those blocks are contaminated with non-customers. There are entire departments dedicated to dealing with these sorts of issues,

The phone company is obligated to provide them in clean blocks because most PBX equipment used in hospitals expect full clean blocks. Modern soft switches usually don't have a problem but there are lots of hospitals expansion projects and such in which they are not upgrading their equipment. Again, this is regulated by the government. All of this is regulatory nonsense... much of it proposed and written by lobbyists from AT&T as they have the most to gain from regulatory red tape and high fees. Notice that lately there are fewer alternative carriers in your area? That's because AT&T lobbied congress to let them raise inter-carrier rates to the point that its no longer profitable to lease lines in their territory.

Just make unlocking phones legal under all circumstances. We already know the 'unintended consequences' of that. Making unlocking always legal gives us a market based approach versus a legislative approach and if done correctly (yea right) the law could be made simpler not more complex then current law.

I have no problem with that, but FORCING them to do that is not necessary if unlocking on ones own (including using exploits) is legal. People will gravitate to both unlocking friendly carriers and phones that are readily unlock-able. Customers have a choice of a subsidized phone or not and can decide depending on their circumstances what is best for them.

While I would not call them friendly, AT&T has unlocked every phone I have asked them to in the past four years after 1 year of contract is done.

I wonder what the fuss is about. When you're agreeing on a cell phone + contract, the contract has a subsidy in it. So, Obama is actually forcing a seperation of both parts. I still think companies should be able to lock the phone for the initial 2-year duration of the contract. If you don't want that, buy your phone somewhere else and get a bare contract, like I've been doing for years, or PAYG.

I usually buy my phones whenever I want a new one, where it's cheapest. Then I go and find a contract where the guy selling it hands me part of his commission, or I use PAYG. I'm usually better off than with a contract+phone.

This might come as a surprise, but in Europe we have unlocked subsidized phones. You are effectively locked in by the contract, no need to add overhead and inconvenience by locking down the phone. The company still gets the money in full, providing a long-term hidden loan bundled with service, exactly as planned. And users get to use local SIM cards when going abroad, without paying the extortionist roaming fees.Locking down hardware is nothing more than an attempt at cash-grab by imposing extra inconvenien

There's is a part of me that wants the FCC to treat Obama's petition the way he responds to all those citizen petitions on WhiteHouse.gov [whitehouse.gov]... which is to say, the FCC ignores him completely or else responds with a watered down statement that says nothing.

Except I sort of like the idea of the FCC enforcing an unlocked-phone/BYOD policy for the carriers...

Even if you only had service within city limits, you'd already be much more reliable than any cellular carrier I've ever tried. My android phone can run a SIP client and I've been kicking around the idea of just dropping the cellular contract and rolling my own solution with an asterisk server on a cloud service and a local wifi provider.

I always wonder about those people like you who say, "Obama is ok because Bush did the same." Do you not realize that people voted for Obama to be better than Bush? We didn't just want another Bush. We had hope.

Who cares. If they for whatever reason won't give you an unlocked phone, get it from any electronics shop you want. That's supposed to be the main advantage that you can get your phone (unsibsidized and without contract) anywhere and then get a cheaper plan that doesn't include phone subsidies. (from any phone company you like) Just slap the SIM into the phone and you're done.

In the good ol' US of A if you bring your phone to another company, you pay the same thing everyone else is paying. No discount for not getting a new shiney through the new company. There are very few exceptions to this (T-Mobile is the only company im aware of).

That explains why I never found a simply pay-as-you-go plan for phone&data when I spent my holidays there... (which will happen again in a week from now. any ideas for a way to have mobile internet on my GSM phone for 3 weeks?)

I only spent a few minutes looking last time I was in the US, but I found lots of mobile phone shops that were willing to give cheaper SIM-only deals and even more such deals were available online. Eventually I decided that since my phone had OSMAnd for offline maps and I had WiFi in the hotel (and a lot of coffee shops and so on), I didn't need to bother with mobile coverage.

I paid $200 for a mid-range Android phone (a Samsung Galaxy Victory) and now I pay $35 a month, unbound to any contract, for 'unlimited' data and 400 minutes. It's completely bound to Virgin Mobile, but most of the people around me pay twice a month what I do for capped data plans (with unlimited minutes- but I seldom use voice on a cell phone.)

I feel that I pay significantly less than others in my market are paying, but could never bring my phone to another company. I refuse to be bound to a contract.

This republican doesn't care that this idea comes from the Obama administration. In the rare case where they do the right thing, I'll agree with them.

I think that while the carrier has a claim on your device, they can lock it. Once you have fulfilled the terms of your contract and *paid* for the device, it should automatically be unlocked *without* having to ask. So this would at least be a step in the right direction. I guess having to ask is not that huge of an issue, as long as the carriers have to un

yeah that's why we don't have pentaband phones going from 900 to 2100 on umts and gsm.. oh wait we do.

cdma networks in usa were on purpose built so that you're tied to the network as the phone provider. they should never have allowed to do so because it's pretty obvious what the result from that kind of arrangement is..

yeah that's why we don't have pentaband phones going from 900 to 2100 on umts and gsm.. oh wait we do.

cdma networks in usa were on purpose built so that you're tied to the network as the phone provider. they should never have allowed to do so because it's pretty obvious what the result from that kind of arrangement is..

When you trace the origins of CDMA back to PCS, it was developed to overcome the bandwidth-sharing shortcomings of AMPS. The tech lock-in was more of a happy side-effect (for Sprint -- at the time still making a lot of its money selling long-distance carried on lines running on the Southern Pacific Railroad's rights-of-way.)

You can't have that many antennas in the phone without it being too big.

You haven't see my in-laws new phones, then. You want too big? They got that. My father- and sister-in-laws phones don't fit any of my pants pockets except ones with those big cargo pouches (and then kneecap my with every step). My mother-in-law carries a phone big enough for a satellite dish. I couldn't carry that at all without some kind of holster worthy of an HP-41. Epic Galaxy Phablet Nexus Plus Seven, or something.

So I'm pretty sure that size isn't the limit there. Those suckers could fit an original

The contracts that the rest of the world think are a ridiculous and counter-productive system?

Besides, this would have nothing to do with contracts. It just means that if you want to change carriers, you would be able to take your phone with you. IF you hadnt yet paid off the subsidy, they would probably bill you for that when you left, not force others to pay for it. And if they stiff the company on a contractually obligated fee they will most likely find themselves in court or have bill collectors h

It's a contract, and should be sufficient. It's why there are courts and laws.

Have you ever seen a large corp like this go after you for money? If you stiff a phone co on their fees, no other phone co will ever let you sign up again because they'll look at your credit rating and laugh so hard tears will start running down their faces. I don't fee sorry for the carriers one bit as they get to write all the terms of the contract.

They do not all allow BYOD. Verizon will not activate devices that they do not sell. Just try and get a SIM activated in a 2013 Nexus 7 LTE. This is in clear violation of their agreement for the 700mhz band, but they do not care.

Stores are in fact doing this, in violation of their company policies. Resellers, which is when you see the big verizon logo and a smaller logo below it on the storefront, will do it all day long. They will violate the policy to get the monthly income.

"Carriers must sell you an unlocked phone upon request. They are also required to allow you to BYOD. And, indeed, they all do so."

What country are you in? Because I remember that being the case in Europe, but here in the US, there is not a single provider that has coverage anywhere near me that will even talk with you about BYOD. You will sign a contract and take a subsidised phone off the list or they will not do business with you, period.

Are they just going to change the terms of the contracts to find another way to screw people over? I really just want the price on unlocked devices to come down.

Really.

I'm a pre-paid customer and I just went through a lot of hell getting a new Samsung Galaxy S4 to use with my pre-paid account. They sent me a plan phone, which already had a number in it, so had to go back, but they didn't close the plan when the phone was returned so sent collections after me. Idiots. I just wanted to buy a pre-paid phone which I could switch on premium services for a day or week and then go back to pre-paid. Also able to do wi-fi. Nothing terribly special. All this binding pe

That, and in the US, most carriers don't offer a 'discounted' service for buying the device outright (or bringing your own); so if you're going to use the service anyway, may as well get the discounted phone.